Cab Driver Working Through App Not Considered a Worker
A London cab driver who spent a small proportion of his time working through the app 'Mytaxi' has been held not to be a ‘worker’ of the app operator by the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT).
What Were the Circumstances of Employment?
In the case of Johnson v Transopco UK Ltd, Mr Johnson worked as a self-employed black-cab driver from 2014. In 2017 he registered as a driver with the respondent through its app, Mytaxi. Mr Johnson was registered with Mytaxi from April 2017 to April 2018 and during this time he completed 282 trips via the app, earning a total of £4,560.48. During the same period he earned £30,472.45 as a self-employed driver.
Mr Johnson brought various complaints against the respondent at the Tribunal which were dependent on him proving he had worker status.
Was Mr Johnson Considered a Worker?
The Employment Tribunal found that Mr Johnson was not the respondent's worker. There was a contract for transportation services between Mr Johnson and the respondent which created an obligation of personal service. However, Mr Johnson could provide those services as frequently as he wanted to. He dictated the timing of when he provided the services, and he was not subject to control by the Respondent in the way the services were performed.
The Tribunal also noted only a small portion of Mr Johnson's work was carried out through the app (under 15% of his overall income from taxi driving). Whilst drivers could be suspended from the app for excessive cancellations, that this did not constitute a significant measure of control to find worker status, but was instead a brand protection function of the app.
Did The EAT Support Mr Johnson's Appeal?
Mr Johnson appealed to the EAT, who upheld the Tribunal's decision. The Tribunal was entitled to focus on how Mr Johnson split his time and the difference between the income he earned as a self-employed driver compared to the income he earned through the app. It was reasonable for the Tribunal to determine that Mr Johnson's relationship with the Respondent was not a dependent work relationship. Instead, the app was a 'client or customer' of Mr Johnson under s.230(3) Employment Rights Act 1996.
Other Factors Influencing Employment Status
It is useful to note the basis on which the EAT distinguished this case from the decision of the Supreme Court in Uber BV v Aslam. In the Uber case, the Supreme Court found that the Uber drivers were workers, as Uber exerted much more control over their drivers than Mytaxi.
This case demonstrates how the requirement to render personal service can be balanced against other factors demonstrating the control (or the lack thereof) an organisation has over an individual when determining employment status.